How good is Aristocracy really?

[JonathanStrange]

Where was all the Aristo-farm love when I said I kinda liked being an Aristocratic Elf? I don't recall anyone in that thread much supporting that idea! It's kind of hard to determine here at times what a poster is saying: is he for/against Aristo-farms? Kinda sorta?

 

[EverNoob]

I myself have used every single civic, adapted to the situation. With the possible exception of theocracy. Early game civic depends on civ and situation. So I use city-states or god-king or aristocracy depending what the situation calls for.

The loss of production from aristo comes from the fact that in a production city, your farms produce less food so you need to devote more tiles to farms as opposed to a production tile. There's also cottage plains for

@Senethro:
As for Champion vs Axeman example you mentioned. Since you managed to gain the upper hand with ...That's consistent with my point about being so important.

I could certainly imagine aristo-agrarian working well with financial leaders, especially Calabim since their manor's give . That mitigates aristocracy's production disadvantage. It would be good to know which civs you guys are using to base your opinions about aristo-agrarian.

I'm getting the impression ppl who are big fans of aristo-agrarian are playing financial civs.

I usually play elohim, charadon, clan, alexis. So I never play financial.

So are people advocating aristo-agrarian for all civs in general, even the non-financial ones? Or especially for financial?

 

[EverNoob]

Where was all the Aristo-farm love when I said I kinda liked being an Aristocratic Elf? I don't recall anyone in that thread much supporting that idea! It's kind of hard to determine here at times what a poster is saying: is he for/against Aristo-farms? Kinda sorta?

I'm not against aristo-agrarian. I think it's a perfectly viable choice. I just wanted to understand why it seemed alot of players thought it was clearly superior to others. Because I don't think it's superior, at least for non-fincancial leaders anyway. I love all civics

 

[Senethro]

I myself have used every single civic, adapted to the situation. With the possible exception of theocracy. Early game civic depends on civ and situation. So I use city-states or god-king or aristocracy depending what the situation calls for.

The loss of production from aristo comes from the fact that in a production city, your farms produce less food so you need to devote more tiles to farms as opposed to a production tile. There's also cottage plains for

In Aristo there are no production cities because every city is working farms, every city is getting gold from farms and every city has enough surplus food to work a lot of hills/forests. This is different from needing designated cottage citys and farm/mine cities. There is no production disadvantage, its all in your mind.

@Senethro:
As for Champion vs Axeman example you mentioned. Since you managed to gain the upper hand with ...That's consistent with my point about being so important.

I didn't explain fully enough. The only way I was able to beat the Iron Champion opponent was because I had crippled my economy building axemen. And when it took too long to research anything I built more axemen. If it was a 1v1 this would have been a reasonable tactic, but it was a 6 player FFA and my only chance of winning was to use this axeman horde to kill everyone. I wouldn't have even beaten the Iron Champion player had he not attacked first and placed his stack in a defenseless tile. I suffered 60% casualties and had I not had Hasted/Raiders units I would not have been able to make a sucessful counterattack.
So, lucky me. I lived all of 6 turns longer until a cloud of Strength 6 Spectres came from the Sheaim player.

I'm getting the impression ppl who are big fans of aristo-agrarian are playing financial civs.

I usually play elohim, charadon, clan, alexis. So I never play financial.

So are people advocating aristo-agrarian for all civs in general, even the non-financial ones? Or especially for financial?

I play Mahala Doviello. An infrastructure light economy for an infrastructure light civ.
And yes, I also play a Financial Varn Gosam.

 

[vale]

The loss of production from aristo comes from the fact that in a production city, your farms produce less food so you need to devote more tiles to farms as opposed to a production tile. There's also cottage plains for

That is in a single city. Meanwhile, Aristo gains production in every city that would have been running cottages. You can't talk as seriously about city specialization in FFH (it is still present, but much weaker) since building costs have always been too high. What hammer multipliers will your production city have? You may lose the ability to wonder spam with distributed production, but in terms of important production (military) you will gain significantly.

It seems like you are willfully ignoring the production increase that Aristocracy gets in general across the empire to worry about a single city.

 

[Turinturambar]

I'm not against aristo-agrarian. I think it's a perfectly viable choice. I just wanted to understand why it seemed alot of players thought it was clearly superior to others. Because I don't think it's superior, at least for non-fincancial leaders anyway. I love all civics

Let's do another sample game. Post a starting save or a save of the turn when you reach education with the leader of your choice (exception: Lanun leaders), where you think going for an aristograrian economy is suboptimal.

We can then compare progress over the following turns. Maybe you are right and there is something the proponents of the aristo economy are missing. Let's find out!

 

[Frodius]

I am just starting to play FFH2 regularly, and I love it of course, but wouldn't aristocracy/agrarianism really require a lot of fresh water to be head and shoulders above the other choices.

I had a game with the Malakim on an Erebus map, where I had more floodplains than I could believe, and aristofarms were totally off the charts.

On the other hand, I have had plenty of starts where I have had almost no freshwater where early farms were not an option for a number of my cities, and I had to spam cottages, and use mostly seafood and cows for food. This seems to happen a lot on tectonics maps.

Another question I have is, given all of the food available under aristofarms, how do you take advantage of it if you are a good leader and can't use slavery? In BtS slavery comes so much earlier too.


It seems like one of the best parts of pursuing mysticism early is that you can build elder coucils and pagan temples in your food heavy cities and start running specialists. I would think that the beakers you get out of a couple of lightbulb'ed specialists would make up for a lot of the beakers you lose out on by getting mysticism before teching code of laws/calendars. That might depend on if you are a philosophical civ and what the bulb orders are for FFH2.

 

[Luckmann]

I tend to use it simply because it's efficient. Should this tile have a Cottage or a Farm, a Mine or a.. whatever, a this or a that? Not so with Aristograrian(tm)! Can that tile have a farm? Then it's going to get a farm! If it can't have a farm, it's getting a mine!

Can it get any simpler?

 

[Skyre Noktis]

I tend to use it simply because it's efficient. Should this tile have a Cottage or a Farm, a Mine or a.. whatever, a this or a that? Not so with Aristograrian(tm)! Can that tile have a farm? Then it's going to get a farm! If it can't have a farm, it's getting a mine!

I remember a game like that. I think it was called Civ 2.

 

[Luckmann]

I remember a game like that. I think it was called Civ 2.

Kinda true, actually. It was actually quite true up until Civilization 4, and even now I mostly spit out farms.

The point is that with Aristograrian, you can't really fail. You can probably get a bit suboptimal; "What would benefit me the most in this, very specific, tile in particular? Does my city need a small long-term boost in commerce or would I benefit most from a farm here-and-now".

But in the end, the difference would be negligable in most cases. Certainly not all. With aristograrian and farm-spamming, you can't go fatally wrong. I'm sure you can balance it out with tweaks here and there for 'ze most optimum economy evar!'.

But if you're in the least bit uncertain, build a farm.

It helps that one of my favourite civilizations are the Calabim and that Aristograrian fits them like a glove in every way. I never seem to get the ratio of cottages right, and end up either stifling the growth of my city or nuke my production. I'm trying to get away from Aristograrian, like playing a merchant empire of Amurites based around trade routes, but.. well.. I suppose that has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Earthling]

GOD KING IS NOT BAD. ALL BOW TO OUR GLORIOUS OVERLORD.

Well, really, I'm not seeing where the hate for God-King is coming from. Or why Aristocracy is the best in its category. All the time I run Agrarianism, but not necessarily with Aristo. Maybe some of you do play Financial civs all the time, there I could see Aristo looking pretty strong. First of all I agree that cottages are woefully weak in FfH2 for most civs - so that's not what I'm arguing; the choice isn't and has never been between cottages and farms to make that clear. I also run Agrarianism almost all my games when Guardian of nature isn't available; there's no way to argue that Agrarianism isn't best in its category.

So, then we're looking at the choice of Government civic, where I do think there are a lot of reasons, for various civs and settings, to go with something other than Aristocracy. Losing -1 for 2 really isn't all that good in the first place, and then there's the whole denial factor of not getting another civic. Even if it's not God-King, civics like Theocracy and Republic can have their uses for various victories or situations. The short answer is Aristocracy does deny you running more specialists and getting more production, and unless you have a monstrous empire (where hmm, City-States seems to shine) God-King can contribute hugely to your economy - it's not even hard at all to move the palace if your original cap doesn't get the holy city of your religion or something for more money. Especially early game God-King is very competitive, and I consistently win Deity games and seem to do well enough MP that I don't think Aristocracy is required. God-King can have synergy with ANY civ if the start/map suits it, and then it really does still shine with a ton of civs/random combos - Kurios always, Dwarves often, Any OO with Tower of Complacency, any civ with it's holy city, clan/Doviello who need straight production to go conquer... the list goes on. And I do wonder what game Senethro or anyone else is playing where Mysticism is a tech you want to avoid till the mid-game, a "beaker-sink" and "dead-end." If anyone needs I could easily take about 30 minutes for a test game where God-King in a holy-city, a couple settled GP gets me past whatever economic benchmark you're positing, up to and including Deity difficulty.

 

[Senethro]

Aristocracy is not bad for specialists. Because of the excess food every city will likely have a Sage and a Priest. The 2 commerce/food return of the Aristo civic is also a better return than most specialists give under most situations.

God King: It raises city maintenance, not lowers it. Only by a little but its competing against CS and Aristo, so its significant.
I imagine God King would be good in Deity where you spend a great many turns cowering inside your own borders and your capital makes up a large portion of your empires total output. Unfortunately for God King it becomes available with a bad tech. As has already been made apparent in this thread, there are people who still haven't given up on Mysticism, so lets examine it.
The mistake: People think Mysticism is an economic tech due to the God King civic and Elder Councils.
The truth: Mysticism is not Education or Code of Laws - It doesn't give you an improvement that makes commerce. The +50% gold of God King is pointless if you don't make any commerce at all and is pointless anyway if you don't run 40% Science or have a Shrine. You don't have a shrine until some time after researching Mysticism, so its a waste.
So, Mysticism is not an economic tech. If you research it before an economic tech your enemies will kill you. You can't research it after getting an economic tech because you need Tier 2 military of whatever flavour your civ prefers - or else your enemies will kill you.

I research Mysticism after getting an economy and military because its a gateway tech to Adepts and Priests. No other reason.

It seems to me that Mysticism is only researched early in the case of gimmicky religion rushes - Elves and Phi civs racing to Infernal Pact.

 

[Earthling]

So you never found a religion? Or do you play at so low of a difficulty that there's never any competition? I forget if maybe there's one (Empy?) doesn't require Mysticism, but every other religion does.

And the +50% is no laughing matter at all, certainly helps you getting out more defenses, or attackers than your neighbours. Civs like Clan/Doviello do just fine with God-King, no need to go for Code of Laws.

Edit: As for maintenance, that is a valid point, but I think it goes towards there being a niche for each civic. If you only have a couple cities early game it's not a concern. If you have a huge empire City States is better than both God-King and Aristo. I just don't see the always Aristo dominance.

 

[popejubal]

If you have a way to make lots of Specialists (Theocracy/Guilds/Liberty/Whatever), then Agrarianism by itself will be better than Aristo-grarianism as long as you can still get Great People from multiple cities. For most of the game, however, you can't make more than a couple of Great People. That means your cap is going to limit the benefit you can get from extremely high food tiles.

Now, if only there were a way to give up a little of that food so that we could get just +1 food on the tile, but also get a couple of commerce as well... ohwaitthereisaway!

Aristograrianism is an amazing civic combination once you get Sanitation. The only time I see a clear advantage to Cottages is when there are tiles that can't be irrigated for some reason (cut off by hills/desert/etc) or as an improvement to put on resourceless Plains.

 

[Senethro]

You're only at a disadvantage for founding the 3 early religions and given that FoL isn't good for most civs and most people dislike the Overlords, who cares?

Founding religions is overrated anyway. The heroes are the important part and most of them are tied up in later techs. If someone cripples their economy by founding a religion too early then someone else will beat them to their hero.

+50% hammers is good but you're missing the point. God King is not an economy. If you don't have an economy you've lost the game.

 

[popejubal]

Aristocracy is not bad for specialists. Because of the excess food every city will likely have a Sage and a Priest. The 2 commerce/food return of the Aristo civic is also a better return than most specialists give under most situations.

This is especially true in the early-mid game when you just don't have all that many specialist slots available to you in each city.

 

[popejubal]

Where was all the Aristo-farm love when I said I kinda liked being an Aristocratic Elf? I don't recall anyone in that thread much supporting that idea! It's kind of hard to determine here at times what a poster is saying: is he for/against Aristo-farms? Kinda sorta?

Since the forests give a hammer, you'll actually lose something when you switch to Agrarianism. It's the +1 with no hammer loss at all on Grassland that makes Agrarianism (and Aristograrianism) so very attractive. I'd actually rather have that +1 hammer instead of the +1 food in most cities.

Hmmm. Maybe a look at Aristocratic Elf farms without Agrarianism would be in order. It's the same food once you have Ancient Forests and you get extra hammers that other civs won't get. I like your idea here (as long as you're avoiding the Agrarianism).

 

[Frodius]

Aristocracy is not bad for specialists. Because of the excess food every city will likely have a Sage and a Priest.

Don't you need mysticism to run the sage and the priest? Maybe you wait for a library and a non-pagan temple.

I also think you are discounting how powerful the first couple of great people are in terms of beakers per turn if you use them to lighbulb technologies.


I think that if you are running financial and/or have lots of freshwater, aristograrian is the way to go, but I am not convinced that it is so much better than other options on other maps or with other civs.

 

[Earthling]

But God King is an economy. You work tiles, specialists, bring in yeilds. Whether it's through wonders, settled specialists, shrines, military production or other benefits it provides a huge advantage, particularly in the early game. And by admitting that your Aristo beeline doesn't work for half the civs/religions there doesn't seem a case for Aristo being the always #1 option. There are a ton of ways to make a central important capital and God-King enhances that.

Edit: And what's this most people dislike OO? Easily in the top one-two religions in the game? From a purely competitive standpoint OO rocks. From an rp standpoint I can see, but then not everyone is gonna be Aristo either or even go either of the paths we're talking about.

 

[Senethro]

What tech are you going to Lightbulb with a GP from a super-early Mysticism that will somehow change the game?

But God King is an economy. You work tiles, specialists, bring in yeilds. Whether it's through wonders, settled specialists, shrines, military production or other benefits it provides a huge advantage, particularly in the early game.

Ok, whatever, you're not listening. Its time for you to prove it with a demonstration game.

And by admitting that your Aristo beeline doesn't work for half the civs/religions there doesn't seem a case for Aristo being the always #1 option. There are a ton of ways to make a central important capital and God-King enhances that.

Quote me where I said that.